Gangadhar Laxamanrao Barbate Vs Madhaoji Nanaji Patel( Since Deceased Thr. Lrs) Jamnaben Wd/O Madhavji Patel — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Gangadhar Laxamanrao Barbate Vs Madhaoji Nanaji Patel( Since Deceased Thr. Lrs) Jamnaben Wd/O Madhavji Patel — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Permission to delete respondent No.2(i) to 2(v) and 3(a) from the array of parties; Second Appeal disposed of in accordance with the compromise terms in paragraph 4(i) to 4(vi) of Civil Application (S) No.1271/2025 recorded between the appellant and respondent No.1; settlement terms made part and parcel of the decree and to be incorporated therein by the Office.

Issue for consideration

Whether permission should be granted to delete the names of respondent No.2(i) to 2(v) and 3(a) from the array of parties. +1 more

Court's answer

Permission is granted to delete the names of respondent No.2(i) to 2(v) and 3(a) from the array of parties.

Ratio / Principle

Rights of respondent No.2(i) to 2(v) and 3(a) are not adversely affected by the compromise.

Key takeaways

The Second Appeal is disposed of in accordance with the terms and conditions enumerated in paragraph 4(i) to 4(vi) in Civil Application (S) No.1271/2025.ratio¶¶17
The terms and conditions of settlement shall form part and parcel of the decree.ratio¶¶18
Office to incorporate the settlement terms enumerated in paragraph 4(i) to 4(vi) in Civil Application (s) No.1271/2025 in the decree.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), Rohit W. Joshi, J., 24 December 2025 (Second Appeal No. 302 of 2010; neutral citation 2025:BHC-NAG:15036). On Civil Application(s) Nos. 1263 and 1271 of 2025 in a pending second appeal (arising from a suit over an agreement of sale of the suit property, dismissed by the Trial Court but allowed by the First Appellate Court in the plaintiff-appellant's favour), the Court: (i) permitted deletion of respondent No.2(i) to 2(v) and 3(a) from the array of parties, having found that their rights are not adversely affected by the compromise and noting the personal presence and no-objection of Harpreet Singh (respondent No.2(v)) together with respondent No.2(i) to 2(iv); (ii) acting on the learned Registrar (J)'s verification report dated 19/12/2025 confirming that the parties admitted execution of the compromise terms and contents thereof, disposed of the Second Appeal in accordance with the terms in paragraph 4(i) to 4(vi) of Civil Application (S) No.1271/2025 presented by the appellant and respondent No.1; and (iii) directed that the settlement terms form part and parcel of the decree and be incorporated therein by the Office. No statute or precedent was cited; no monetary quantum was awarded.

2025:BHC-NAG:15036

1 05-sa 302.2010.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

SECOND APPEAL NO. 302 OF 2010

( Gangadhar S/o Laxmanrao Barbate (died) through LRs vs. Madhaoji S/o Nanaji Patel (since deceased through LRs) and others )

Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or the directions, Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders.

Mr. S.L. Kotwal Advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.T. Madnani, Advocate for respondent No.1(ii), 1(iii)(a) & 1(iv). Mr. N.H. Shams, Advocate for respondent No.2(ii) and 2(iv).

CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DECEMBER 24, 2025

CIVIL APPLICATION (S) NOS.1263 OF 2025 & 1271 OF 2025

These are applications for grant of permission to delete the names of respondent No.2(i) to 2(v) and 3(a) and for passing compromise decree.

This Court has perused the judgment delivered by the learned Trial Court. The judgment indicates that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 who are the original defendant Nos.2 and 3 did not contest the suit. In fact the Written Statement of the defendant Nos.2 and 3 is of admission of the claim of the plaintiff. The controversy is that the plaintiff had entered into an agreement of sale with respect to the suit property with the defendant Nos.2 and 3. The defendant No.1 opposed the said transaction. The defendant No.1 alone was contesting respondent. The suit was dismissed by the learned Trial Court. The plaintiff (present appellant) preferred Regular Civil Appeal, which came to be allowed by the learned First Appellate Court. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 do not enter their appearance in the appeal, as it appears from the judgment passed by the learned First Appellate

KOLHE

2 05-sa 302.2010.odt

Court. It is clear from the record that rights of respondent No.2(i) to 2(v) and 3(a) are not adversely affected by the compromise.

1. Harpreet Singh, son of deceased respondent No.2, who is arrayed as respondent No.2(v) is personally present before the Court and states that he and respondent No.2(i) to 2(iv) do not have objection for deletion of their names from the array of parties and also for recording compromise and passing compromise decree in terms of compromise terms presented by the appellant and respondent No.1.

1. In view of above, permission is granted to delete the names of respondent No.2(i) to 2(v) and 3(a) from the array of parties.

1. The compromise terms are verified by the learned Registrar(J), who has submitted report dated 19/12/2025 stating that the parties have admitted execution of the compromise terms and contents thereof. In view thereof, the Second Appeal is disposed of in accordance with the terms and conditions enumerated in paragraph 4(i) to 4(vi) in Civil Application (S) No.1271/2025.

1. The terms and conditions of settlement shall form part and parcel of the decree.

1. Office to incorporate settlement terms enumerated in paragraph 4(i) to 4(vi) in Civil Application (s) No.1271/2025 in the decree.

( ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. )

KOLHE